The groups were not really comparable because the LC group
underwent more emergency operations. That difference is significant with a p
value of 0.007—conveniently omitted from the abstract. The preponderance of
elective cases likely accounts for the SILC group's shorter operative duration,
lower rate of conversion to open, and shorter length of stay. The SILC patients
were also a mean of 10 years younger.

The average operative time for the LC patients, 80 minutes, is
much longer than the 40 to 45 minutes reported in most other recent series such
as this one. In statistical
circles, measuring one's pet theory against a false comparator is known as setting up a "straw man." I've written
about this before.

This study was done in Germany, where the hospital lengths
of stay for both types of surgery are far longer than those seen in the United
States where about 90% of patients go home within 24 hours of laparoscopic
cholecystectomy.

The authors concluded that "SILC can be regarded as a
natural evolution in the era of minimally invasive surgery."

On the other hand "No disadvantage" is another way
of saying, "No advantage."

3 comments:

Not convinced, but that doesn't matter. This is like a smaller version of the robot issue; it's all about gaining market share. I can see ads of bikini-clad models with their invisible SILC incisions, held up next to pictures of morbidly obese (OK, maybe just overweight) patients with 4 huge scars that still have skin clips in place. Which would that make you choose?

Hmm, now that I think about it, I can see a counter-advertising campaign...A super obese patient after SILC with a dehisced, draining umbilical wound compared with a model who had her 4 incisions closed with glue and treated with Mederma for 3 months. I'll get to work on that.